Select statement with multiple joins

I am not really sure wether i understand what you want to do, but i asume there are 2 tables, accounting and ar? If not, please name the table names in the other select statements.

SELECT a.contact_id, b.Current, b.Zero30, b.ThirtyOne60, b.SixtyOne90, b.Over90 FROM accounting a
left join ar as b on ON a.contact_id = b.contact_id

mmm... doesnt make sense, cause in that case you wouldnt need table at all...

so, please describe how many tables you have and which fields are in which table

I guess my mind had gotten a little fuzzy.  Actually 'accounting' is suppose to be 'ar'.  We're working with only ONE table.  I said in my initial post that I simplified the separate select statements of b,c,d,e and f.  They each have nested select statements where they pull records and the balance is a grouped field, hence Current, Zero30...etc.

In using INNER JOIN what if no record meets the criteria set forth in one of the select statements?  Do the contact_id, Current values come back Null or would it cause the Select a.contact_id, b.Current, c.Zero30......to come back with no record?

I have to have it come back Null else a valuable A/R record would not be included in the select.

I strongly suspect you can calculate all the totals at once, rather than in several different queries and then joining them.

You probably have the Current|0-30|31-60|... in WHERE clauses for each statement, with the rest of the query -- joins, etc. -- the same.  Instead, you can do this:

SELECT contact_id,
    SUM(CASE WHEN ? <= 0 THEN amt ELSE 0 END) AS Current,
    SUM(CASE WHEN ? BETWEEN 1 AND 30 THEN amt ELSE 0 END) AS Zero30,
    SUM(CASE WHEN ? BETWEEN 31 AND 60 THEN amt ELSE 0 END) AS Thirtyone60,
    ...
FROM tableName
WHERE ...other conditions excluding # of days...
GROUP BY contact_id

Thanks for the reply Scott.
I think I'm going to be sick.  I think I just realized something about SQL that I never knew and I truly feel nauseous.  This shows that I have alot to learn.

I have always been using the word HAVING ....  after my GROUP BY for the conditional word instead of using WHERE before the GROUP BY.

Because I have always been using HAVING... it has required me to create nested select statements I would not have ordinarily had to create?  For example the records below would yield two different results depending on the two subsequent SQL statements.

ContactID        DueDate            InvoiceAmt
1                     12/20/2006           150.00
1                     12/22/2006           150.00
1                     12/24/2006           150.00

SELECT ContactID, SUM(InvoiceAmt) AS InvAmt FROM file WHERE DueDate >= CONVERT(datetime,'12/20/2006') GROUP BY ContactID

Results would be (which is what I want):
ContactID         InvAmt
1                       450.00

Whereas the SQL statement
SELECT ContactID, SUM(InvoiceAmt) AS InvAmt FROM file WHERE DueDate >= CONVERT(datetime,'12/20/2006') GROUP BY ContactID
would return an error about DueDate not being part of the aggregate grouping... and I would have to do create an idiotic nested select like this.
SELECT a.ContactID, SUM(a.InvoiceAmt) AS InvAmt FROM (SELECT ContactID, InvoiceAmt FROM file WHERE DueDate >= CONVERT(datetime,'12/20/2006')) a GROUP BY a.ContactID

If I'm on the right track....
Is it safe to say that I can SUM on multiple fields and at the same time include any number of conditions through using WHERE without having to include those conditional fields as output?

I screwed up.  I copied and pasted without making the change to the following:

Whereas the SQL statement
SELECT ContactID, SUM(InvoiceAmt) AS InvAmt FROM file GROUP BY ContactID HAVING DueDate >= CONVERT(datetime,'12/20/2006')
would return an error about DueDate not being part of the aggregate grouping... and I would have to do create an idiotic nested select like this.
SELECT a.ContactID, SUM(a.InvoiceAmt) AS InvAmt FROM (SELECT ContactID, InvoiceAmt FROM file WHERE DueDate >= CONVERT(datetime,'12/20/2006')) a GROUP BY a.ContactID

I understand what you're saying.  As I was waiting (hoping) for another quick post from you, I modified my original select with WHERE making it more efficient.  I have one other issue that I will have to deal with but this has helped immensely.

Now I get to re-review other SQL statements where I use HAVING and not WHERE.  All part of the learning curve.

dbeneit understood and helped me out with the original issue but your postings had value I wasn't expecting but welcome.  Split points.

Thanks all !!  
Sincerely,
Phil